Google "ADD URL" hurts your potential rankings????

Just one site would be listed?

You think so?

I wonder WHICH site Google would pick to list? (assuming for the moment you're right)

 

Cute. But you're still out to lunch, Danny. To answer an earlier question, the reason this thread is running now to 6 pages in length is not that your comments are controversial -- it's that they are just plain dumb.

To say that you will do better in SE ranking if you have backlinks to a new site than if you submit a page without backlinks to Google isn't anything new or startling or original -- backlinks are, after all, the foundation of Google. So that statement isn't even interesting...

To say that manually submitting a site to Google results in a Google penalty is total nonsense -- it amazes me that anyone would believe it for a second, much less state and re-state it repeatedly.

May I suggest that you go and do your little experiments and return here when you have evidence that is worth poking holes in?

 

You see, it's stuff like this that just cracks me up. Half assed "research".

Check the way back machine and have a look what my site used to look like. For that matter, I think Alexa still shows my old site because the new one is still so new.

My site ORIGINALLY (for the last 6 years or so) was geared more towards the data mining and data warehousing stuff that I do. However, I got sick and tired of the travel required and essentially dropped that line of business to focus on other things that don't take me away from home.

That means I got rid of (asked for the removal of) the links from sites such as the data warehouse institute.

This has killed my PR and I haven't taken the time yet to build my link campaign back up again.

AND FOR THE FIFTH TIME AT LEAST The article was basically a long way of saying "focus on backlinks".

That you guys are claiming that the entire thing was somehow wrong is ... interesting.

ON TOP OF THAT I've got more than just a couple of articles on SEO Chat. Have a look at them and then come back here and tell me I don't know my stuff.

Better yet, if any of you seriously want to question my ability, how about this. Put your money where you mouth is.

Lets see some of you other "experts" in SEO create some articles on actually optimizing your site. Right now SEO Chat has a grand total of THREE active writers ... Me, Jaqueline Dooley, and Hugo Guzman. Tell me which of the three of us is creating articles on actually optimizing your site. Jaqueline is a great lady. I like her a lot and she does produce some great articles. But her stuff is VERY light on hard strategies as is Hugo's stuff.

Come on "experts" ... lets see you put your knowledge on the line.

I'm calling you out. Lets do (ok, this is supposed to be funny, but at the same time I AM serious) ... an "article battle".

Lets see you folks create some articles on hard strategies for optimizing a web page, submit them to SEO Chat, and we can all debate the finer points of SEO.

 

I became a member here TONIGHT, not last night. Since I became a member I have posted rather heavily in this thread.

 

Finally he comes clean!

 

www.zaav.com - still buried in Google from submitting using the Add URL

www.paradisefoundtours.com - Still a bit buried by Google for using the Add URL.

Nice and slow so that I don't lose you this time. I have EVIDENCE that PROVES what I said is accurate.

Now you can say that SEO Inc has RECENTLY been clobbered by Google, but they did manage to hold onto the #1 spot for SEO for a VERY long time. It goes without saying that they probably know a thing or two about optimization.

Go and sign up for SEO Inc's ecourse ... it's free right there on their website. You'll see that Brad Callen has the same opinion of using the Add URL feature that I do.

In otherwords, I am hardly the only SEO guy on the planet making this statement.

So I am going to CONTINUE to repeatedly state that using the Add URL feature of Google's site is a bad idea.

And just so that we're clear, this site was very near 5 pages when I started posting to this thread, so I'm going to stick by that statement as well.

 

1) I've posted two specific instances of proof.

2) That was hardly my first article on SEO Chat. Before you folks start claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, why don't you go and have a look at my other articles.

3) I'm not the only guy on the internet making that claim. You folks are trying to make it sound like THAT ONE SENTENCE IN A MORE THAN 1,000 WORD ARTICLE is all the article was about ... and you're strangely trying to say that I'm the first guy to make that claim!

 

Other than the one sentence which has so "enraged" you folks ... what exactly about the article was "a steaming pile" exactly?

I keep asking that question and so far no one can give an answer. Again, the article essentially was saying to focus on back links.

There was nothing in the article (other than that one sentence) that was either controversial or new.

 

Then Brad Callen is also wrong.

That isn't evidence of anything. Two new sites that aren't ranking well in Google? Not exactly a rarity. What makes you think it's because you manually submitted them?

For www.zaav.com:

http://www.google.com/search?source...ls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-12,GGLD:en&q="www.zaav.com"

http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLD,GGLD:2005-12,GGLD:en&q=link:www.zaav.com

http://www.google.com/search?source...,GGLD:2005-12,GGLD:en&q=allinurl:www.zaav.com

Not exactly astounding, is it?

Now try www.paradisefoundtours.com:

http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLD:en&q=allinurl:www.paradisefoundtours.com

http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLD:en&q=allinurl:www.paradisefoundtours.com

http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLD:en&q=allinurl:www.paradisefoundtours.com

Obviously quite a bit better.

So now what search terms are you trying to use to find these sites in Google?

 

No you haven't. You haven't posted any specific instances of proof of anything at all. You posted two URLs. Big deal. I could post 30 or 40. What would that prove?

 

It does.

This is EXACTLY the case. The spider has a priority system. Don't believe me ... create two unrelated sites, have one get a bl from a PR3 site, have the other get a bl from a PR7 site and tell me which gets spidered/indexed first.

And thus you have the reason why you don't want to use the Add URL feature ... at least part of the reason.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself. It almost seems like people just magically started reading SEO Chat in the last couple of days or so. I've got I think 6 articles on the site now and of them all, this one has the most basic stuff. There isn't ANYTHING about this article that should be drawing this kind of response.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ... I got less response when I made my comment about OPML in an article several weeks ago now.

For this one sentence to be drawing this kind of reaction is seriously STRANGE ... especially since I'm NOT the only SEO guy around making the claim.

 

Please tell me where I ever said that ANYWHERE in ANY article I've written.

I did say to try and let linkbacks ... and I said you'd probably be unsuccessful. So I gave an alternate strategy for getting that CRUCIAL first linkback.

Did you actually read the article?

 

1) I've posted a couple of sites as proof more than once in more than one forum.

2) I'm not the only SEO guy making this claim as I have said SEVERAL times now.

 

Who said that *I* manually submitted them. I gave them to show what happens when you DO submit them.

AND AGAIN I'm not the only guy making the claim.

As for the search terms, lets use paradisefound ... how about "grand canyon tours".

The site ranks near the top in MSN and Yahoo ... buried in Google. While this is hardly anything new, that does happen for various reason, take a look at the site itself (view page source and check the bls) and tell me that it deserves being buried the way it is several hundred items deep.

 

That was funny.

What would you accept as proof?

Do a google search for "grand canyon tours"

then go to paradisefoundtours.com and look at their page source.

Then have a look at their bls

Then come back here and tell me with a straight face that they should be buried by Google.

 

Let me make sure I understand this: You have a site that you believe should rank higher than it does in Google. You post the URL. You post "grand canyon tours" as the search term. And somehow this is evidence that Google penalizes manual site submissions?

This is a joke, right?

The last time I saw people posting stuff like this it was to "prove" that Google was broken and had run out of database space or some such nonsense.

It doesn't prove anything except you think your site should be doing better in Google than Google does.

 

Let me first apologize for Danny, and note that he does not represent what is generally an excellent community at SEOChat. Most of the forum members and posters there are much more well informed and sophisticated than this singular writer.

I'm hoping that in the near future, SEOChat will take it upon themselves to have much better content in their articles by screening and properly vetting that which is patently untrue (or even just bad advice).

Danny, I believe you may be suffering with Google's "sandbox", but haven't heard of it or understand the factors possibly involved. Let me urge you to read up on that subject and considerably more about the SEO process and business in general before posing as an expert - it's not a good way to build a positive profile. You also asked about other SEO writers. Let me urge you to read work by Mike Grehan, Barry Schwartz, Nick Wilson, or even the site in my signature; there are competent SEO writers out there. Hugo Guzman, who you mentioned, is also quite talented and capable imo.

BTW - Minstrel - Will I be seeing you at Toronto SES next week? Maybe I can buy you a beer?

 

Unfortunately, no... I have commitments in Ottawa.

But if you want to PM me the money, I'll promise to use it to buy myself a beer

 

Looks like http://www.linkadage.com/ wrote that articale

 

Actually, I think The Man, The Guru... Randfish has said the last word!

Case is closed...